Which Jesus?

Thesis — “Which Jesus?”: A Comparative Study of Christological Presentation across Historic and Modern Bible Translations and the Implications for Verbal Plenary Preservation

Abstract

This thesis examines whether different Bible translations — William Tyndale’s New Testament, the Geneva Bible, the King James Version (KJV), and representative modern translations (NIV, ESV, CSB), together with the Chinese Union Version (CUV) and the Latin Vulgate — portray materially different conceptions of Jesus Christ. Building on textual-critical, historical, and theological evidence, the study argues that differences among these editions are real but largely revolve around text-critical choices, lexical nuance, and translator theology, not the promotion of multiple Jesuses in the sense of distinct persons or competing Christs. It further develops a sustained critique of the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), showing that VPP is untenable in light of the manuscript record, historical translation practice, and the concrete ways differing texts affect propositional statements about Jesus.

Table of contents 

Introduction & methodology

The textual bases of each translation (brief)

Types of differences that affect Christology

Case studies (key passages & variant readings)

Do modern versions promote a different Jesus? — analysis

Theological consequences for Christology

A thesis-level refutation of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

Conclusion

Select bibliography

1. Introduction & methodology

This study compares representative English (and two non-English) editions spanning the Reformation to the present. It proceeds by (a) identifying the textual bases and translation philosophies behind each edition, (b) selecting high-load Christological passages where textual variation or lexical choice could plausibly alter doctrinal claims, (c) comparing renderings across translations and tracing their manuscript/lexical causes, and (d) evaluating whether any differences amount to presenting a different Jesus. The inquiry treats “different Jesus” strictly: differences that would result in a significantly different ontological, soteriological, or propositional portrait of Christ.

2. Textual bases of the translations

Tyndale (NT) / Geneva / KJV (1611): Early modern English lineage. New Testament largely follows the Textus Receptus family (a printed Greek text tradition derived from late Byzantine manuscripts). Old Testament translations used Masoretic/Hebrew and earlier English influences (for KJV the OT relied on Masoretic; for Tyndale/Geneva, the sources varied).

NIV / ESV / CSB: Modern translations based on eclectic critical Greek texts (Nestle-Aland/UBS) and up-to-date manuscript evidence, including early papyri (P^52 etc.), major uncials (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus), and diverse patristic witnesses.

CUV (Chinese Union Version, 1919): Historically influenced by KJV renderings and the English textual tradition; for the NT it reflects KJV/Textus Receptus influence in places, though translators consulted other sources.

Latin Vulgate (Jerome): Jerome’s fourth-century Latin translation based on Hebrew for the OT and a Greek text for the NT (but the Vulgate’s NT tradition evolved as medieval Latin manuscripts diverged). Vulgate variants reflect Latin transmission realities and occasionally different Greek Vorlage.

These bases matter: which manuscripts a translator privileges directly shapes wording and, in some high-stakes verses, Christological expression.

3. Types of differences that can affect Christology

Text-critical omissions or inclusions — e.g., longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20), John 7:53–8:11 (Pericope Adulterae). Presence/absence can influence depiction of Jesus’ post-resurrection activity or his handling of sinners.

Key lexical choices — e.g., translations of monogenēs (usually “only begotten” vs. “one and only”), or theos in John 1:1/1:18 (rendered “God” vs. “true God”/“the only Son” depending on language and textual reading).

Doctrinally loaded amplifications — readings such as the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8) historically were used in Trinitarian proof-texts; its absence in critical editions removes a late Latin gloss used in some confessional arguments.

Style and emphasis — word order, article usage in Greek, and tense/aspect choices can subtly shape emphases (e.g., predication of deity vs. role/function language).

Translational theology — translators’ confessional commitments and target audience expectations may influence phrasing though not necessarily change ontological claims.

4. Case studies — selected passages and comparative effects

Below are illustrative passages where variant readings or lexical choices have historically mattered for Christology. Each case notes the variant, how representative translations render the verse, and theological significance.

A. John 1:1 and John 1:18

Textual facts: John 1:1 in Greek (ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) is stable; translations uniformly render “the Word was God.” John 1:18 has two main readings in Greek manuscripts: ὁ μονογενὴς θεός (“the only-begotten God”) vs. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (“the only-begotten Son”) or an equivalent “the one and only Son.”

Renderings:

KJV/Tyndale/Geneva: tend to favor “only begotten Son” in 1:18 reflecting TR-influenced traditions and established ecclesiastical phrasing.

NIV/ESV/CSB: often render John 1:18 in line with critical text choices: “the one and only Son” or “the only Son” — seeking to reflect the weight of manuscript evidence that supports υἱός or a paraphrase.

Vulgate: Jerome’s Vulgate rendered John 1:18 in Latinate phrasing (“unigenitus Filius”), following the textual options he knew.

CUV: historically follows KJV patterns; modern Chinese editions vary, some reflecting “only-begotten Son,” some using equivalents of “one and only.”

Theological significance: The variation affects theological emphasis but not necessarily the core of Christ’s deity: John 1:1 is unequivocal about divinity; John 1:18’s variant only adjusts whether the verse explicitly calls the Son “God” or identifies him as the unique Son. Theologically, defenders of orthodox Christology integrate both verses; few serious traditions deduce Arian conclusions from the 1:18 variant alone.

B. 1 John 5:7–8 (Comma Johanneum)

Textual facts: The Latin Comma (“in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one”) is absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts and appears in later Latin tradition.

Renderings:

KJV (Textus Receptus basis): includes the Comma (1 John 5:7).

NIV/ESV/CSB and modern critical editions: omit the Comma as not original.

Vulgate (older editions): included the Comma in some medieval manuscripts; later critical editions of the Vulgate (Nova Vulgata) align with modern critical text and omit it.

Theological significance: When present, the Comma was used historically for a “textual” proof of the Trinity. Its absence in modern editions means that the Trinitarian doctrine is argued now from the whole New Testament rather than from this interpolated clause. This alters apologetic strategy but does not change the broader New Testament portrait of Trinitarian relationships.

C. Mark 16:9–20 (Longer Ending of Mark)

Textual facts: Two endings exist: shorter (ending at 16:8) and longer (16:9–20) — the longer ending appears in the majority of later manuscripts; earliest witnesses (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) end at 16:8.

Renderings:

KJV & older translations: include the longer ending as canonical text.

NIV/ESV/CSB: typically print the longer ending but may bracket or footnote its manuscript status; some modern editions note the variant and include the shorter ending as original in footnotes.

Vulgate and CUV: historically include the longer ending; modern critical Vulgate editions and annotated CUVs may note textual uncertainties.

Theological significance: The longer ending contains resurrection-appearance narratives and commissions; its absence or bracketed status affects how editions present resurrection proofs and post-resurrection sayings. Again, doctrinal cores (resurrection, commission) are supported elsewhere; a few isolated apologetic claims dependent on the longer ending are weakened when it is bracketed.

D. Luke 22:43–44 (The Agony) & John 7:53–8:11 (Pericope Adulterae)

Both passages are manuscript-unstable; their presence or placement differs. Translations vary in inclusion and notation. The passages depict Jesus’ human agony and mercy/forgiveness; omission or bracketed status affects narrative detail about Jesus’ humanity and pastoral practice but does not create an alternate ontological Jesus.

E. Philippians 2:6–11 (Kenosis Hymn) and Colossians 1:15–20

Differences here are mostly lexical/phrasing (tense, article usage) rather than wholesale textual omissions. Choices shape nuance (Christ’s pre-existence, the nature of his self-emptying) but not the foundational claim that Christ is pre-existent, incarnate, crucified, and exalted.

5. Analysis — Is a different Jesus being promoted?

No, modern translations are not promoting an ontologically different Jesus in the sense of advancing a distinct person or alternate Christ-figure. The robust Christological doctrines — incarnation, deity, atoning death, resurrection, exaltation — are present across all listed translations.

The nuanced answer:

Core Christology is stable. Major high-load doctrines about Jesus’ deity and salvific work are attested across the manuscripts and supported by multiple strands of the New Testament witness. Where variants occur, they typically affect formulation, emphasis, or apologetic convenience, not the underlying reality of who Jesus is.

Textual choices change emphases, not identities. For example, translating monogenēs as “one and only” vs. “only-begotten” shifts connotations (begetting imagery vs. uniqueness) but theologians integrate both.

Some modern translations emphasize historical-critical concerns. That can tone down readings that later scribes amplified (e.g., Comma Johanneum) and thus remove textual props once used for certain dogmatic proofs; in doing so they change argumentative strategy more than Christology itself.

Local variations can affect lay perception. Non-scholars may read stylistic and textual differences as doctrinal changes; pastoral and catechetical consequences follow. Translation footnotes explain variant status in modern editions, which fosters a different kind of reverence — intellectual honesty about transmission rather than rhetorical certainty.

6. Theological consequences for doctrine and piety

Doctrinal formulation: Councils and creeds that defined Christology drew on many texts and theological reflection; they did not rest on single ambiguous readings. Thus, while textual variants influence exegesis, they rarely overturn doctrinal consensus.

Apologetics: Certain historical proof-texts are weakened (e.g., Comma Johanneum); apologists adapt by using cumulative evidence.

Devotional life: Renderings affect devotional phrases (e.g., “only begotten Son” has patina for many believers); modern equivalents may feel less familiar or intimate but often more transparent to underlying Greek.

7. Thesis: A rigorous refutation of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

7.1 Statement of VPP

VPP holds: God miraculously preserved the exact words of the original autographs (verbally and plenarily) throughout history such that a particular textual tradition (often identified with the Masoretic Text for the OT and a specific Greek tradition for the NT, historically the Textus Receptus or a related family) constitutes the perfectly preserved text.

7.2 The refutation — structured arguments

A. Empirical manuscript divergence

The global manuscript tradition of the New Testament comprises thousands of Greek manuscripts (papyri, uncials, minuscules), early translations (Latin, Syriac, Coptic), and patristic citations. These witnesses show substantive variants — some minor (orthography), some significant (omissions, additions, word order). If VPP required identical word-for-word preservation across history, the empirical evidence of hundreds of thousands of variant readings contradicts it. See descriptive counts in textual criticism literature (e.g., Metzger, Parker).

The presence of early, divergent witnesses (e.g., P^75 vs. later Byzantine hands) demonstrates that no single unbroken chain of identical copies existed.

B. Historical practice of editing and harmonizing

Church figures (e.g., Eusebius, Origen, Jerome) engaged in collation, correction, and comparison of texts. If perfect preservation characterized the tradition, such labor would be redundant. Instead, their activity presupposes a historically mediated text. Constantine’s commissioning of standardized codices (via Eusebius) aimed at practical uniformity, not proof of a miracle of perfect preservation.

C. The logical incoherence of identifying “the preserved” with later secondary traditions

VPP proponents often assert a specific extant tradition (e.g., TR/KJV textual family) as the preserved text. But many of the characteristic readings of such traditions are late or regionally confined; they do not trace back unambiguously to autographs. If divine preservation guaranteed an identical text, it should be demonstrable by the earliest, most geographically diverse witnesses — yet those witnesses frequently differ.

D. Patristic citation pattern

The early fathers quote Scripture so extensively that one might reconstruct the text, but their citations themselves reflect textual plurality: patristic citations often align with particular regional readings. The fathers sometimes argue about readings — showing the early church did not possess a single unvarying text.

E. Theological and hermeneutical problems

VPP collapses the distinction between inspiration (God’s action in producing the autographs) and providential transmission (God’s ongoing care). Scripture’s authority in the history of the Church has functioned even amid textual plurality; claiming perfect mechanical preservation confers theological status on a particular manuscript family rather than on God’s providential guidance of the community.

VPP tends to render textual criticism unnecessary or heretical, which is inconsistent with the recognized biblical mandate to be Berean (Acts 17:11) and the church’s historical practice of careful textual labor.

F. Practical consequences contradict VPP claims

If a single perfect text existed through history, variant theological emphases (e.g., defense of the Trinity using the Comma) would not be so contingent on later additions. The reality that doctrine has been and can be defended without dependence on late interpolations undermines VPP’s presumption that only one textual family preserves all doctrinally necessary words.

7.3 Synthesis — why VPP fails as both descriptive and prescriptive claim

Descriptively, the manuscript and patristic record does not support the existence of a single perfectly preserved wording.

Prescriptively, VPP’s insistence on a unique preserved text misplaces theological reliance from the Redeemer to a particular textual tradition, confuses providence with mechanical preservation, and undermines responsible scholarly engagement with Scripture.

8. Conclusion

Comparative study of Tyndale, Geneva, KJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, CUV, and the Latin Vulgate shows variation — in manuscript inclusions, lexical choice, and stylistic emphasis — but not the promotion of distinct Jesuses. Differences influence emphasis and apologetic tactics, and they sometimes change the rhetorical force of passages important for articulating Christology. However, the stable center of Christian confession — that Jesus is the preexistent Word, incarnate Son, crucified and risen Lord — remains consistently present across traditions.

The robust textual evidence and historical practice of the church provide a strong, multi-pronged refutation of Verbal Plenary Preservation: the record shows preservation by providence and community, not by uninterrupted, verbatim transmission secured miraculously for a single textual family. Textual criticism, far from being a hostile discipline, practices fidelity to Scripture by reconstructing with discipline the most plausible original readings — a task consonant with historical realism and theological humility.

9. Select bibliography

Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (for accessible survey of textual variation).

Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration.

D. C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts.

Maurice A. Robinson & William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform (for TR/Byzantine perspective).

Eldon J. Epp, “The Papyrus Papyri and the Text of the Greek New Testament,” in New Testament Textual Criticism (ed. Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman).

Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins.

Kirsopp Lake, The Text of the New Testament (classical treatment).

J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines.

Relevant critical editions: Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28), United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (UBS5).